Peters

CHINO COMMERCIAL BANK, NA v. Peters

Good Law
109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 806·184 Cal. App. 4th 1333·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 743·72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 523
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 25, 2010E049170California2,475 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellant Brian D. Peters is the victim of a Nigerian-style e-mail scam. He agreed that his corporation would receive money supposedly owed to a gentleman in Malaysia and would then pay that money out as the gentleman directed in exchange for a 15 percent fee. His corporation received checks totaling $808,988.90 and deposited them in an account with respondent Chino Commercial Bank, N.A. (the Bank). It then had the Bank pay out $468,000. Thereafter, all of the checks that had been deposited bounced.

The Bank filed this action to recover the resulting overdraft. It promptly obtained a right to attach order against Peters. Peters appeals from the right to attach order. He argues that the Bank had the burden of proving that it did not act negligently and that it failed to carry this burden.

(1) We will hold that, under the California Uniform Commercial Code, Peters had the burden of proving that the Bank did act negligently, and he failed to do so. Hence, we will affirm.

Faux Themes Inc. (Faux or the corporation) is a corporation in the construction business. In March 2008, it opened a checking account with the Bank. Both Peters and Marilyn Charlnoes were authorized…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.